The present time is essentially one of transition. Complete uncertainty reigns as to the main principles of biology. Many of us think that the materialistic and simplicist method has proved a complete failure, and that the time has come to strike out on entirely different lines. Just in what direction the new biology will grow out is hard to see at present, so many divergent beginnings have been made–the materialistic vitalism of Driesch, the profound intuitionalism of Bergson, the psychological biology of Delpino, Francé, Pauly, A. Wagner and W. Mackenzie. But if any of these are destined to give the future direction to biology, they will in a measure only be bringing biology back to its pre-materialistic tradition, the tradition of Aristotle, Cuvier, von Baer and J. Müller. It may well be that the intransigent materialism of the 19th century is merely an episode, an aberration rather, in the history of biology–an aberration brought about by the over-rapid development of a materialistic and luxurious civilisation, in which man’s material means have outrun his mental and moral growth.
E. S. Russell’s history of the development of the theories of biological development is still being used in college courses. Given the small bits I’ve read, it’s written well, but since I only can read a small part at a time, I don’t know whether Russell has a particular opinion on mechanisms of animal morphology. Perhaps a more biologically-trained reader can comment.
I snipped this quote from the concluding chapter because I thought it was an interesting commentary on how society in general affects the course of scientific inquiry.